Re: ISSUE-67: Naming of "device"

... people found it clearer, more extensible, less conflict with other
existing properties of navigator


Anyone care to elaborate? what conflicts are there today?  how is adding another object under navigator more extensible?

Thanks!
Doug



On Jan 14, 2010, at 9:54 AM, <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:

> Ah, referenced the wrong minutes: 
> 
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jan/0105.html
> (13th Jan 2010)
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TIBBETT Richard RD-ILAB-LON 
>> Sent: 14 January 2010 17:53
>> To: 'Doug Turner'
>> Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org WG
>> Subject: RE: ISSUE-67: Naming of "device"
>> 
>> Hi Doug,
>> 
>> On the conf. call we resolved to go with 'Option 1: 
>> navigator.device.dahut.graze()' [1]. 
>> 
>> Meeting minutes are available here [2].
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Richard
>> 
>> [1] 'Resolution #90' in http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/resolutions
>> 
>> [2] 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jan
>> /0036.html
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org 
>>> [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Turner
>>> Sent: 14 January 2010 16:49
>>> To: Anssi Kostiainen
>>> Cc: Robin Berjon; public-device-apis@w3.org WG
>>> Subject: Re: ISSUE-67: Naming of "device"
>>> 
>>> My option isn't in the list, so I will state it plainly.  
>> My position 
>>> is that we use:
>>> 
>>> navigator.<module>.<method>
>>> 
>>> as
>>> 
>>> 1) .device. offers no real namespace and it is extra characters to 
>>> type
>>> 2) it fit in navigator.geolocation.*
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Widgets or other things that do not have a navigator object 
>> can root 
>>> these APIs under a different object (e.g.
>>> widget.<module>.method, or even <module>.method)
>>> 
>>> By the way, the bike shed must be red.
>>> 
>>> Doug Turner
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jan 14, 2010, at 6:13 AM, Anssi Kostiainen wrote:
>>> 
>>>> api, ext, device, service
>>>> 
>>>> With tequila? Yes sir!
>>>> 
>>>> -Anssi
>>>> 
>>>> On 14.1.2010, at 16.02, ext John Kemp wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> api, ext, device, service
>>>>> 
>>>>> Are you inviting us for tequila too (in which case, I
>>> accept) Robin? 
>>>>> ;)
>>>>> 
>>>>> - johnk
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 14, 2010, at 8:41 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am loth to open a naming debate, so as agreed on the
>>> call yesterday let's make it swift. I initially planned on 
>> doing this 
>>> on a Friday, but I won't be around tomorrow so today's the 
>> new Friday.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We've resolved to use the
>>> navigator.device.<module>.<method> form yesterday (for APIs 
>> where it 
>>> makes sense, naturally). It's been suggested that "device" 
>> isn't such 
>>> a great name, and alternatives have been proposed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The following alternative (including keeping things as
>>> they are) have been proposed:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> device
>>>>>> service
>>>>>> api
>>>>>> ext
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Since this is essentially a bike-shed decision, I've
>>> decided to use a variant of the Survivor decision process. 
>>> The normal Survivor process is synchronous and therefore won't work 
>>> well here. The variant is this: please vote with the list 
>> of options 
>>> above ordered from the one you *hate
>>> most* (and therefore want to see voted off the island) to 
>> the one you 
>>> hate least. The winner will be selected using a commonsensical 
>>> ordering and tequila. Voting closes when I get to work 
>> Monday morning; 
>>> since this is a vote (albeit
>>> informal) we don't need to know what the reasoning behind your 
>>> preference is (though you may include it, if it's entertaining 
>>> enough).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My vote: api, ext, device, service.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Robin Berjon
>>>>>> robineko - hired gun, higher standards http://robineko.com/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> *********************************
> This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. 
> Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
> Messages are susceptible to alteration. 
> France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
> If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
> ********************************
>

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 20:01:08 UTC